About your Search

20121205
20121205
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
, with russia and china, containment when it came to russia was countering their expansive capabilities. >> rose: right. >> our own -- when it came to their nuclear capability we were talking about deterrence. >> rose: right. >> and so i think first we want to contain iranian influence in the region, but i think the question that people are -- that what the president is really addressing is, or would we be content with deterrence? >> right. >> and there i think the difference in the ayatollahs and their religious, their they cratic approach to the world, their threats to destroy israel make them a more worrisome, significantly more worrisome possess sorry of nuclear weapons than other nuclear states. >> rose: because they have a different decision al type structure. >> yes. >> rose: from russia, and the soviet union from going into europe once again, deterrence is mutually assured destruction. and so then, does the question of value and life, different because of a culture that can produce suicide bombers mean that there -- means that will not work in the end or do you say no nationable and the
's oil credit lines with china. the final touches are still being made. but there are highways without cars. schools with no pupils. it feels like a ghosttown. we eventually found someone who had bought a flat. >> so you live in this apartment building? which -- where is your apartment? on the seventh floor. wow. and this building, is it completely filled? >> no, no. >> translator: no. we have through residents in this building. three apartments occupied. >> reporter: is it strange to be in a huge building with only three -- >> translator:ure right. it's a bit change, you know, especially sometimes when i don't have friends, family over who may be tempted to say maybe i should stay in the city, but for all other purposes, it's quite ideal. >> reporter: this economics professor at angola's catholic university says this $3.5 billion project is misguided sfwloosh is it a vanity project? >> yes, maybe. maybe. we are looking through this project as a political project. the housing there is very -- is still very, very, very high in terms of costs, and i think there is a lot of -- to sell the
and china. john fund, coauthor of the book "who's counting." you want a raise? you want a clerical worker? the money is pretty good. $87,000 a year. $105,000 with a compensation package. one of the top u.s. blue collar jobs. >> the outrageous thing about this strike is this. the port owners were willing to say all the clerks will have lifetime employment. but if someone retires we want the flexibility to move their job around or eliminate their position and the union said no. these clerks basically still use paper invoices to make sure the cargo moves clearly. a lot of that can be automated. these jobs, $165,000 are apparently forever. as a result of that we had this unnecessary strike and it cost a billion dollars a day and the price of toys may go up on christmas. >> this was not about benefits, vacation or pensions or salary. it was about the job of these clerks monitoring the port car go and their jobs are going to be guaranteed for life. but they wouldn't be allowed to replace them or eliminate those jobs once they retired. bill: so the debate was about what happens in the future. if
rights violators wherever they might be, whether in russia or syria or sudan or north korea or china or any other country. in other words, the senate committee-approved bill wisely adopted a global magnitsky standard. the reasoning for this is sound. because while the mechanism of u.s. visa denial for human rights violators was inspired by a single case in a single nation, the principles that it seeks to advance are universal. this bipartisan committee bill, unlike the house-passed version of the magnitsky act that we will soon vote on, does not single out russian human rights violators for visa denial but would apply the visa denial mechanism to people from any country who violate important human rights standards. the united states should be clear and firm in its commitment to protecting human rights. wherever the violation occur. and to holding those who violate those rights accountable to the best of our ability. including denying them visas to come to our country. human rights do not end at the borders of russia and anyone who violates those standards as so many did so blatantly
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)